Advisory Opinion No. 95-18

Re: Frank J. Williams, Esq.

This Advisory Opinion is addressed to Attorney Frank J. Williams and members of his law firm in their respective capacities as Solicitor and Assistant Solicitor for the Town of Bristol. Attorney Frank J. Williams and members of this law firm received appointment as Solicitor and Assistant Solicitor for the Town of Bristol on January 4, 1995. Also appointed an Assistant Solicitor at that time was attorney S. Paul Ryan, who is neither a member nor has any affiliation with attorney Williams' law firm. Attorney Ryan was appointed to handle matters involving the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Review; i.e., land use matters. All of the attorneys received their appointments from the Bristol Town Council. Although identified as an Assistant Solicitor, attorney Ryan is employed and supervised by the Town Council, not by the Solicitor, attorney Williams.

Attorney Williams requests advice regarding his and his law firm's involvement in litigation involving the Town Council and the Zoning Board of Review that is presently pending in Superior Court. The litigation, which began prior to the January appointments, finds the Town Council and the Zoning Board of Review as parties in interest with opposing positions. Attorney Williams and his law firm are presently representing the Town Council; attorney S. Paul Ryan represents the Zoning Board of Review.

Attorney Williams correctly notes that in Advisory Opinion No. 93-88 the Ethics Commission opined that violations of the Code of Ethics might take place in a circumstance where the same person acted as solicitor for various councils, boards or agencies within a town that had divergent or opposing interests. He inquires as to whether, in light of that previous advisory, it is appropriate under the Code of Ethics for him and his firm to represent the Town Council, while an Assistant Solicitor who has no affiliation with his firm represents the interests of the Zoning Board of Review.

The Commission advises attorney Williams and the other members of his law firm that the Code of Ethics does not prohibit their representation of the Bristol Town Council in a pending Superior Court lawsuit. Clearly the posture of the case and their representation of the Town Council is such that there is no conflict or divergence of interests. The nature of the concerns raised by the Commission in Advisory Opinion 93-86 are not present in this matter with respect to Attorney Williams and his law firm because a) they do not represent the Zoning Board of Review in this or any related matters, and b) they do not exercise supervisory authority over the attorney, in this instance Assistant Solicitor Ryan, who represents the Board.

Keywords

Litigation